CNN article. I hope this hold up under appeal, and am happy to see that at least some of the judiciary isn’t fooled by the slime tactics.
I first saw this over at Race2004.net
Moving this from IMHO to MPSIMS.
Before you jump to any conclusions, there are few things you should know:
-
The Republican camp is trying to have 23,000 voters declared ineligible because their registration forms were returned to the post office as having invalid addresses. The registrations were a result of a massive campaign by the democrats to enlist new voters.
-
Judge Susan Dlott is the wife of Stanley Chesley, who is the biggest ambulance chasing class action lawyers in the country. He makes John Edwards look like small potatoes.
-
Attorney Stan Chesley have helped raise millions of dollars for the democrats. He and his wife, Judge Dlott, hosted two fundraisers in their home for Bill Clinton in 1995.
-
Judge Dlott was appointed by…President Bill Clinton.
When W. says the democrats are in bed with the trial lawyers, it actually has merit.
Do you have any evidence that the judge’s ruling was influenced by who appointed her or her fundraising activity?
No. I also have no direct evidence that the Bush administration granted Haliburton a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract based on its connections to V.P. Dick Cheney. There are times when a reasonable person can look at a rat and call it a rat even though DNA hasn’t proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s a rat.
I heard on the radio this morning (how’s THAT for an authoratative cite?) that the appeals court overturned Judge Dlott, and the challenges will be allowed.
PunditLisa, please note that these two judges were appointed by Reagan and Bush. Care to characterize on this side of the fence?
I’m sure that Judge Dlott and Judge Adams ruled as they did in good faith.
I’m just as sure that the 6th circuit ruled as THEY did in good faith.
I will point out that the 6th circuit opinion upheld the plain langauge of the law of Ohio, and the lower court decision did not. But the reasoning used by the lower courts was not off-the-wall crazy – as are some judicial decisions regarding things that do not appear in plain text – and there is no reason to impugn the ethics of any judge involved in this.
Well, I’m fairly certain that you are not a naive person, so this must be a whoosh. In a country as hopelessly polarized as this one is politically, bias on the part of judges can be assumed. These five judges ruled right down the party line. The dissenting judge in the appeals court was a Clinton appointee.
Chef: the two district judges were from both parties and reached the same conclusion pretty much the same way. That these “challenges” were going to hopelessly gum up the works.
The Appeals court basically seemed to say, “Nah, it won’t be so bad, and it’s just as important to make sure that the votes are good votes, instead of fraudulent ones.”
So far today, the Appeals court seems to be correct. But it is still early.
I refer you to my rat comment above. It holds true no matter what side of the fence you’re looking in on.
Re my comment above. The Appellate judges are undoubtedly partisan, but that doesn’t mean that I disagree with their ruling. I think the fact that 23,000 addresses came back as being undeliverable smells strongly of organized voter fraud. The only thing worse than denying people the right to vote is allowing someone to vote multiple times just because they feel soooo passionately about their candidate.
I don’t know what the answer is to voter fraud. Clearly something has to be done because this case is hardly unique. In this particular case, I think the registrations have to be thrown out because you can’t fetch them back after the election. And I’d say that no matter what party was making the appeal. Sorry, but if you didn’t list a correct, current address on your registration form, you don’t get to vote. Period. Not because your vote shouldn’t count but because we need to have some safeguard against fraud.
Bottom line is that I feel that we should give one man one vote and let the chips fall where they may. And no one, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to circumvent the system.
But there’s a simpler explanation: judges appointed by Democrats tend to favor reading between the lines; judges appointed by Republicans tend to favor strictly interpreting the law as written. That’s what each judge did here.
Like in the case of, say, the 2000 election decision in the supreme court? Because, clearly, a strict reading of the equal protection clause calls for stopping recounts.